I just got done appearing on a rightwing talk radio show, hosted by one of the B-list Limbaughs that fill the drive-time airwaves across the country. He was all in a lather about Heidi Cullen; it became clear during his intro that he'd invited me on because he assumed I'd defend her (after all, I want to execute skeptics!).
"I assume you support Cullen's attempts to censor her political opponents," he said at the opening.
"Eh," I said, "it doesn't seem worth the bother." That flummoxed him a bit.
I used my time on air to make three simple points:
- The number of deniers is tiny and shrinking, and they have no credibility in the scientific community.
- The IPCC is one of the most rigorous scientific processes ever developed, and its new report pegs it at greater than 90% confidence that humanity is driving recent warming.
- Accepting the basic science of climate change does not mean you have to become a socialist treehugger; there are plenty of market-based policies on offer. Wingnuts are ill-served by trying to make political points by denying accepted scientific facts.
The host was somewhat taken aback that I wasn't a bomb-throwing wacko. He didn't know what to make of me. I think my reasonableness bored him.
Comments
View as Flat
meander Posted 4:30 am
20 Jan 2007
Don't expect to be invited back...
Permalink
pielke Posted 4:47 am
20 Jan 2007
Good thinking on your part ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:06 am
20 Jan 2007
Heidi gots guts. Fight the power!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
jfleck Posted 2:38 am
21 Jan 2007
Don't you think it's a bit inconsistent to go on right wing talk radio and trumpet the importance and value of the IPCC consensus, while at the same time here, among friends, expressing a complete willingness to abandon consensus findings when a scientific outlier (hurricane-global warming link) meets your needs?
It's obvious that you've got the high ground with IPCC-style consensus. Why are you so easily willing to cede it by turning to the dueling-scientific-outlier trope?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:57 am
21 Jan 2007
On the subject of the hurricane link, the IPCC explicitly hasn't drawn any conclusions. The balance of evidence has not yet exceeded its (considerable) threshold. Some people, acting on precautionary-principle-style reasoning, have judged that there's now enough evidence of a connection for us to start worrying about it and acting to avoid further warming. Among these people are some well-known and well-respected scientists.
You may not think that the distinction makes a difference, but I do. I just don't think they're parallel cases.
(I should reiterate, as I have many times in the past, that I personally don't think the hurricane connection is hugely significant one way or the other. I wouldn't encourage advocates to focus on it. If hurricane damage were our sole concern, we would be better off focusing on settlement patterns. My only concern with this whole issue is the facile notion that there are "extremists on both sides," and that connecting hurricanes to climate change is sufficient to make one an extremist. That framing does absolutely no good, and in fact serves the interests of Very Bad People, as I tried at length to show here.)
www.grist.org
Permalink
jfleck Posted 11:09 am
21 Jan 2007
This repeated "Limbaugh hordes" line of argument is a straw man - precisely the same as the "dirty hippies" you so charmingly lampooned. Obviously there are Limbaugh hordes, and they're serial science abusers. But the rhetorical trick of lumping all of one's political opponents with the most venal and stupid of them is precisely the thing you were complaining about in your dirty hippie post. I hope you recognized the irony when you used the trick yourself.
Within the science itself, there are genuine and intellectually honest skeptics. Their numbers are small, but the smart ones pick away at areas in which the IPCC acknowledges genuine uncertainty (just like the hurricane question). And well intentioned people otherwise willing to accept the main points of the IPCC's consensus (not Limbaugh horde denialists) point to these scientists and say, "Well, yeah, but what about (solar variability, land use changes, etc.)...." If you're willing to argue that expert panel assessments ought to be the guiding principle behind political and policy arguments, it's easy to dismiss their arguments as outliers that are irrelevant to the important policy questions - an argument that I've made in trying to explain to my readers how they should think about the outliers they frequently hear cited in the climate wars rhetoric. You've lost that, your best card.
And again, I never said people who make the global warming-hurricane argument are extremists. You're the one who keeps bringing up that word - a bit of a straw man as well.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:00 pm
21 Jan 2007
Let's clarify. Andy Revkin says that this year's IPCC report will assert 90%+ confidence that humanity is driving recent warming. (It was a 66-90% confidence interval in 2001's report.)
Say there are two people who accept that basic conclusion, but disagree about whether climate change is driving more intense hurricanes. I say: that's fine. Neither position should be demonized; neither should be cited as gospel; neither should drive policy. Policy should be based on the uncertainty reflected in the IPCC. But there's nothing wrong with a scientist or anyone else arguing one side or the other of that debate.
(It's not clear, by the way, just what policy question would hinge on the answer, if any.)
Then there are people who do not accept the basic conclusion that humanity is driving recent warming. They are the outliers. There may be "genuine and intellectually honest" people among their ranks, but there's no reason they should play any prominent role in the public dialogue. Yet their role is huge, and among their ranks are many, many ideologues and dimwits. No position I take in or about the hurricane debate forfeits me my right to say so.
www.grist.org
Permalink
jfleck Posted 11:41 pm
21 Jan 2007
The fact that you so completely missed the point of Revkin's "center" piece illustrates the danger to your own side of the argument in continuing to go after the Limbaugh hordes' red flag.
As you know from the polling data, a significant majority in the U.S, believes the scientific consensus. In the public mind, you've already won on the science. As Matthew Nisbet's repeated appeal to the data points out, people's unwillingness to act is based on something other than a sort of Limbaugh-horde-fueled misrepresentation of the science.
Permalink
Benny Big Eye Posted 12:20 am
22 Jan 2007
I don't think that the "Limbaugh hordes" are some kooky manifestation of a paranoid mind.
Instead of "straw man," why not try "straw men," since there are over 1000 comments beating up on her? That would be a little more honest.
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:10 am
22 Jan 2007
Perhaps, to help the dim-witted, you could stop with the handwaving and explain just what this center is. Who are these intellectually honest skeptics that are close to the center? Name them. Revkin's article was about policy and framing. You seem to be talking about science. Which center are we talking about? You say bashing the Limbaugh hordes isn't motivating the masses. Well, is motivation what we're talking about? If so, is the idea that sober centrism is going to motivate people?
Forgive me, but the vibe I get from you and Pielke Jr. and other self-conscious centrists is just that you want to be taken seriously and not lumped in with a "tribe." That, rather than any substance, seems to be driving all this talk of a center.
www.grist.org
Permalink
jfleck Posted 3:11 am
22 Jan 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:15 am
22 Jan 2007
The science.
The policy response.
Framing the issue and motivating people.
It's never clear which of these the "middle" is in the middle of.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:26 am
22 Jan 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
jfleck Posted 4:01 am
22 Jan 2007
On the "Athenian salon," I'm not sure I qualify. I've spent my time in the tribal wars. When I began writing about climate seriously a few years back, I had great fun whacking down the denialists. So I plead guilty here to doing exactly the same thing I'm criticizing others for doing. I've largely given it up after concluding that it served no real purpose - that I was dealing with one tail of the statistical distribution, where minds will not be changed, and the more interesting discussion - and by that I mean both scientifically interesting as well as "policy relevant" interesting - was happening in the middle - that is, in the sphere of science within but tugging at the edges of the IPCC-style consensus.
You asked for examples of the sort of centrist skeptic scientists I'm talking about, whose work I find to be out of step with the consensus, but interesting enough to pay attention to. I'll give two examples.
The first would be Roger Pielke Sr., whose continued niggling on the effects of land use changes has my attention. The consensus, as expressed by the IPCC and NAS reports, suggests that the effect is probably negligible enough relative to greenhouse forcing as to be ignorable for policy purposes. But the consensus also clearly acknowledges significant uncertainty, leaving room for interesting discussion.
The second would be Kerry Emanuel, whose hurricane work has my attention. The consensus, as expressed by the IPCC and more recently the WMO, suggests that the effect is probably negligible enough relative to other climate change problems as to be ignorable for policy purposes. But the consensus also clearly acknowledges significant uncertainty, leaving room for interesting discussion.
The literature is regularly full of examples like this: James Annan's work suggesting upper limits on climate sensitivity (OK, it's not in the literature, but I'm willing to treat it like it is); Petr Chylek's work questioning the Greenland temperature trend; the various teams reporting accelerating Greenland ice cap melting; the Mann, Cane, Zebiak, Clement work raising the possibility of serious drought where I live because of climate change; Marty Hoerling's amazing paper using the IPCC climate runs to suggest dramatic decreases in Colorado River flow over the next century (eek!); the various analyses suggesting more El Ninos and therefore greater southwest precipitation.
Those that are of relevance to my audience (New Mexicans), I write about, trying to explain both what the new research suggests, and how it fits into or conflicts with the consensus. When the new work suggests things will be "worse than we thought," I get beat up by the "Limbaugh hordes". When the new works suggests things will be "not as bad as we thought," I get beat up by the "dirty hippies". This is the classic response one would expect based on the work of Sarewitz - that people with strongly held views on a subject will pick and choose among the science, tending to believe that which supports their views and dismissing that which conflicts. Journalism isn't much good in reaching those people. Instead, I'm hoping to communicate to those in fat middle of the bell curve of public opinion, helping those who chose to actually read the work to better understand what the science actually says.
There's good evidence from the literature on the public understanding of science that what I'm attempting here is futile, that the "cognitive misers" out there won't take the time to seriously read about the science, instead taking their cues from the various opinion leaders. But I'm in denial about that, as I've got no other marketable skills.
Permalink
jfleck Posted 4:14 am
22 Jan 2007
Permalink
Benny Big Eye Posted 4:40 am
22 Jan 2007
But their minority position is part of the plank during every election. Tiny numbers can have a certain amount of power, so while the dittoheads might not be large in overall population, they can have a disconcerting ability to control and shift debate.
I think that's the point Roberts is making. Not that I disagree with you that the dittoheads are a minority.
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 11:46 pm
22 Jan 2007
Blogs are written for the lurkers. If statements from the tail are not challenged, and when necessary worse, the lurkers will think the tail is talking truth.
Finally, for reasons I pointed out elsewhere, I think Sr. only looks to one side. Even casual examination of his arguments shows that for every negative forcing he prattles on about there is a postive one associated with land use or whatever. As to his recent obsession with Lyman, et al on ocean cooling, I refer you to a recent Tamino post. You can start with the graph.
Permalink
jfleck Posted 12:57 am
23 Jan 2007
But in the exchange which triggered this, David was defending "statements from the tail" - in this case his tail, not theirs. That was doing the lurkers on his tail of the distribution a tremendous disservice. The lurkers here, given their position in this particular bell curve, have a far greater need to understand the shortcomings of those pronouncements on their own side of the tail. This is Grist, not Tech Central Station. Its' readers are likely to know already that the Limbaugh hordes are idiots.
More importantly, thought, they need to have the middle explained to them well - not dismissed with a journalistic wave of the hand based on one's "informed gut" when the middle conflicts with the views of those out with you on your tail of the distribution, as David argued was appropriate.
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 1:57 am
23 Jan 2007
However, you and Dave have raised the issue of the "informed gut". I worked for two guys who could not explain 2+2 = 4 to anyone, but KNEW exactly what was important to work on. I know that the trick is to figure out who has the "informed gut" and who just has a stomach ache. You cannot decouple previous performance from the gut issue.
A friend of mine put it this way. Whenever he has a problem, he goes to two of his colleagues. One of them, a Nobel Prize winner no less, always gives him the wrong answer for the right reason. The second, also an eminent chemist, gives him the right answer but for the wrong reason.
A nice illustration is found in Jim Hansen's review of An Inconvenient Truth:
I did not hear from Gore for more than a decade, until January of this year, when he asked me to critically assess his slide show. When we met, he said that he "wanted to apologize," but, without letting him explain what he was apologizing for, I said, "Your insight was better than mine."
Indeed, Gore was prescient. For decades he has maintained that the Earth was teetering in the balance, even when doing so subjected him to ridicule from other politicians and cost him votes.
Knowing when you have such a treasure is the most important thing, because, indeed it can be made fun of. Again Hansen:
An Inconvenient Truth is about Gore himself as well as global warming. It shows the man that I met in the 1980s at scientific roundtable discussions, passionate and knowledgeable, true to the message he has delivered for years. It makes one wonder whether the American public has not been deceived by the distorted images of him that have been presented by the press and television. Perhaps the country came close to having the leadership it needed to deal with a grave threat to the planet, but did not realize it.
Permalink